SHRI BOLARAM ROY Vs. SHRI RANJIT DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang at Mangaldoi, in Title Appeal No.17/1999, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the present appellant has been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree dated 19.05.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Mangaldoi, in Title Suit No.14/1997.

(2.) The respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of possessory right and for recovery of khas possession by ejecting the defendant/appellant from the land described in Schedule-1 and 2 to the plaint, contending inter alia that the land was originally under the possession of their predecessor-in-interest and the proforma defendant No.2 Sudhir Kr. Dutta, out of which land measuring 5 bighas 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by dag No.283 in village Moamari has been under possession of the plaintiff since the year 1973 and land measuring 4 bighas 4 kathas covered by das No.282 of the said village was under possession of the proforma defendant No.2. It has also been contended that by virtue of a family settlement, the proforma defendant No.2 was allotted the land described in Schedule-3 of the plaint and the plaintiff got 10 bighas 1 katha 10 lechas in Schedule-1 and 2 to the plaint, who has been possessing the same. The further case of the plaintiff is that the proforma defendant No.2 proposed to sell the possession of 4 bighas 3 kathas of land in favour of the defendant No.1 at Rs.4,700/- in dag No.137 of Schedule-3 land, for which a katcha sale deed was also executed. The further pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the land which fell in his share being land described in Schedule-1 and 2 was given to the defendant No.1 for cultivation on Adhi system, who, however, has subsequently refused to share the crops claiming purchase of the land from the proforma defendant No.2 by a katcha deed.

(3.) The defendant No.1/appellant has filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff and contending inter alia that he possesses the suit land after purchasing the possession by a katcha deed dated 15.05.1979. According to the said defendant the plaintiff has no possession over the suit land described in Schedule-1 and 2. The proforma defendant No.2 by filing the written statement has supported the case of the plaintiff. The proforma defendant No.3 by filing the written statement has contended that he has no claim over the suit land except being receiver.